pve_create_container

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a mutation operation, the description lacks critical behavioral details such as required permissions, whether the container starts automatically, what happens on failure, rate limits, or the response format. For a complex creation tool with 24 parameters, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Create a new LXC container') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (24 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the creation process, success/failure behaviors, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with many configuration options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all 24 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new LXC container' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('LXC container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_create_vm' or 'pve_clone_container', which would require specifying that this is specifically for LXC containers rather than VMs or clones.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., available nodes, templates), exclusions (e.g., not for cloning existing containers), or when to choose this over similar tools like 'pve_create_vm' or 'pve_clone_container'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.